Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.29 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994
The Supreme Court held that the decision of the employer
was in consonance with Umesh Kumar Nagpal's case and the same should not have
been interfered with by the High Court.??
Smt. Sushma Gosain And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 August, 1989
40. In view of the above discussion, the request of the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate grounds, ought not to have been entertained, as
on the date of application, he was minor, aged about 12 years. Reference can
also be made to a decision made in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India reported
in 1989 (4) SCC 468.
Director Of Education (Secondary) & Anr vs Pushpendra Kumar & Others on 13 May, 1998
In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the
petitioner in Director of Education and another v. Pushpendra Kumar and
others (supra). It is also significant to notice that on the date when the
first application was made by the petitioner on 2.6.1988, the petitioner was
a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the
petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the
petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there is some
specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see
that the family gets immediate relief.?
Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 28 August, 2000
(iii) In Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in
2000 (7) SCC 192, the petitioner was 10 years old, and his mother working as
a Excise Constable, died. He made an application on 02.06.1988, soon after
the death of his mother, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The
said application was rejected on 10.12.1996. Fresh application subsequently
made was also rejected on 21.04.1997. Being aggrieved by the same, he
preferred a writ petition before the High Court. A learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition and that the same was also confirmed by the
Hon'ble Division Bench. On appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph
No.3, held as follows:
Union Of India And Ors vs Bhagwan Singh on 30 August, 1995
(i) In Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Bhagwan Singh, reported in
1995(6) SCC 476, a Senior Clerk in Railways died on September 12, 1972,
leaving behind his wife, two major sons and the respondent (before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court), who was a minor, aged about 12 years. He passed
Higher Secondary Examination in 1983. Stating that he had attained majority
only in 1980/1981, he sought appointment on compassionate grounds. The same
was rejected. The authorities took the view that the application was beyond
the period of limitation (five years) and that the case of the respondent was
not covered by the relevant rules, at the time of the demise of Ram Singh.
Smt. Phoolwati vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 December, 1990
The above view was reiterated in Phoolwati v. Union
of India [1991 Supp (2) SCC 689] and Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh [1995
(6) SCC 476].
)The Inspector General Of Prisions vs P.Marimuthu on 22 April, 2016
44. This apart, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in The
Inspector General of Prisons vs. P.Marimuthu {2016 (5) CTC 125}, in
paragraphs 35 to 41, held as follows:
State Bank Of India & Anr vs Raj Kumar on 8 February, 2010
In State Bank of
India & Anr. (supra), this Court held that in such a situation, the case
under the new Scheme has to be considered.?